The rules exist to facilitate a specific idea of fantasy. The numbers shouldn't be taking the lead on this.
If you're instituting degrees of success and failure, then a roll is always relevant. Which is something the new D20 Test rule is trying to accomplish; if differently. Following the basic premise to its logical conclusion, there's always a risk of a failure or setback, and there's always a chance at success. That isn't in of itself a bad thing. It means you're never totally safe, but it also means you always have a fighting chance. Unpredictable and exciting.
That said, the rule also says the DM has discretion on when to call for a check. This is where I have a problem with it, and, again, this cuts both ways. A DM might call for a roll you could have automatically passed under the rules in the PHB, thus risking failure. And they could also deny you a roll you might automatically pass and simply decide you fail.
If you know what you want out of the game, you can tailor the system to deliver that experience. For me, this rule just needs to be worded a little better.
I do think this is fair. Giving DM's some advice as to when to call for a roll and when not to would help out a lot. But for me it is always a case of if it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to do, don't ask for a roll. If it physically, or Narratively impossible to fail, don't ask for a roll. Otherwise, it is ok for the most skilled person (that isn't a rogue with reliable talent) to fail from time to time with a simple mistake, and it is ok for a person that isn't skilled to just get lucky and make it by the skin of his teeth with a lucky roll. That is the fun narrative side of the game to me.
I get the argument that "if you can't succeed or fail then don't roll"
The thing is this kind of thing is still going to bring up a lot of problems for DM, and limit them in certain ways.
1 There are some checks that say "on a X or higher/lower, Y happens" or "if you fail by 5 or more then Y happens" This new system would say if you auto succeed or fail you don't even roll which makes it so that player doesn't even get to roll on these threshold checks.
2. Degrees of success/fail. Sometimes DMs have things like info and depending on how poorly or well the roll is dictates how much info will be gained. Its not a binary success/fail. A player might be able to auto succeed, but not auto succeed hard enough to get everything.
3. Success on a 20 might meant different things to players and DMs. A player might be trying to seduce a dragon, the DMs might think success is not getting eaten, the players idea of success is starting their own lineage of half dragons.
4 Saving throws, DM "I need everyone in this to a DEX saving throw" Wizard -"natural 20!" DM "oh actually not you" Wiz "wtf a nat 20 is an auto success" DM "wtf, I'm suppose to memorize all of the PCs stat and modifiers?"
If you have a thing that says "If you fail by 5 or more" then by definition there is a chance to fail. Most everything else is that is what you are calling the roll for. If the player says "I try to seduce the dragon". The DM says "roll an ability check to see if the dragon eats you". Number 2 doesn't change and works even better since degrees of success a 20 was always the best you could do and a 1 is the worst. and 4. And that feels pretty shitty for the wizard why would you want that to feel crappy. This way the DM doesn't HAVE to know what the bonus is, a nat 20 is a nat 20. It is a cheer feel good moment at the table.
No, just because something says "If you fail by 5 or more" it does not mean there is a chance to fail; if your modifier+1 equals the DC, you cannot fail by current 5E rules. It basically works like a series of if statements where you first check if you failed, then you check if you failed by 5 or more. If you don't fail, then you don't worry about the failed by 5 or more. If someone had a +5 and it was a DC10, even if they rolled a nat 1, they are only failing by 4, not 5. Thus if they have a modifier that would let them succeed on a nat 1, they can't fail by 5 or more.
"If you fail by 5 or more" does not by definition need to have a chance to fail as the chance to fail is dependent on the person being struck by the effect and how resilient they are to the effect.
There is no point for a "if you fail by more than 5" if players NEVER have a chance to fail. If there is a chance to fail then 5% chance for an expert with 0% of 5 or more fail does not eliminate the usefulness of higher saves. Having high dc's also makes high saves better. And also, also the person's entire point was that the nat 1 and nat 20 rule eliminated fail by 5 or succeed by 5 stuff. It doesn't. Your point has nothing to do with that
Not all characters auto-pass all checks. Just because the party rogue might be able to auto succeed some dexterity saving throws, or the wizard might be able to auto succeed an int saving throw doesn't mean that that applies to every character for every check. Characters have strengths and weaknesses. That's a feature, not a bug. Though as far as how autofailure works with fail by 5 mechanics, they dont. And by that I mean that there is no rule for how they interact at all. They've never existed at the same time, and we have no idea how they're supposed to interact because of it.
I'll give and example of what I'm talking about:
"Lottie’s books are here—both those she likes to read and her financial records for the gambling hall. A successful DC 13 Intelligence (Investigation) check made to look through the account books reveals that several liches have invested in Lottie’s business. If the check is 18 or higher, it becomes clear that Lottie keeps two sets of records—one that she discloses to her investors showing lower profits, and one she keeps to herself with the true profits. If used carefully, this information could let the characters blackmail the lich."
Let's say you have someone with a +13 to investigation. That person should auto succeed and not need to roll. But then that person has no chance of hitting the 18 and getting the additional info. If they do roll and get a 1, then they should auto fail even though it should have been impossible to fail.
There are several things in official content like this, where you for example you would auto fail or succeed, but should still need to roll to see if you hit or miss a threshold for additional effects.
For stuff like this the 1/20 auto fail/succeed is not backward compatible.
For a fail it would be something like:
"make a dc 20 strength check, if the target fails it is grappled, if it fails by 5 or more it is restrained"
A wizard with a -1 STR mod, can't make this save there for shouldn't be able to roll. By not rolling it also avoids rolling to be restrained. If it did roll it could succeed with a nat 20 even though success shouldn't be possible.
Perfect. The DC is still under 30, their is an appropriate roll for them. There is a failure condition and there is a success condition as well as a success by more than 5 condition. 5% chance to fail, 95% chance to succeed and 75% chance for you to beat it by 5 or more. The roll here is appropriate and the 5% chance to fail is not the end of the world. ESPECIALLY if you were already using degrees of success as a thing, because than a 1 would have been the worst possible result besides a fail anyway. Now it is just a fail. It is ok to fail. If it is not ok to fail don't have them roll. If you guys really have an issue, play a halfling, or a rogue. Reliable talent gets around this and halfling luck gets a reroll on a 1 to dodge this. There are still ways to build to not fail on a 1 by making it unlikely/impossible to get a 1.
No, I think you are missing the point of what I'm saying.
Specifically: "just don't call for rolls if you they can't fail/succeed" with the 1/20 auto fail/success.
The PC should auto fail or succeed, you are just seeing how hard they do so. Instead of doing this, the problem is that rolling allows PCs to auto fail something they should auto succeed.
It's an actual backward compatibility issue, whether or not you personally think that a 1/20 chance isn't a big deal.
I get the argument that "if you can't succeed or fail then don't roll"
The thing is this kind of thing is still going to bring up a lot of problems for DM, and limit them in certain ways.
1 There are some checks that say "on a X or higher/lower, Y happens" or "if you fail by 5 or more then Y happens" This new system would say if you auto succeed or fail you don't even roll which makes it so that player doesn't even get to roll on these threshold checks.
2. Degrees of success/fail. Sometimes DMs have things like info and depending on how poorly or well the roll is dictates how much info will be gained. Its not a binary success/fail. A player might be able to auto succeed, but not auto succeed hard enough to get everything.
3. Success on a 20 might meant different things to players and DMs. A player might be trying to seduce a dragon, the DMs might think success is not getting eaten, the players idea of success is starting their own lineage of half dragons.
4 Saving throws, DM "I need everyone in this to a DEX saving throw" Wizard -"natural 20!" DM "oh actually not you" Wiz "wtf a nat 20 is an auto success" DM "wtf, I'm suppose to memorize all of the PCs stat and modifiers?"
If you have a thing that says "If you fail by 5 or more" then by definition there is a chance to fail. Most everything else is that is what you are calling the roll for. If the player says "I try to seduce the dragon". The DM says "roll an ability check to see if the dragon eats you". Number 2 doesn't change and works even better since degrees of success a 20 was always the best you could do and a 1 is the worst. and 4. And that feels pretty shitty for the wizard why would you want that to feel crappy. This way the DM doesn't HAVE to know what the bonus is, a nat 20 is a nat 20. It is a cheer feel good moment at the table.
No, just because something says "If you fail by 5 or more" it does not mean there is a chance to fail; if your modifier+1 equals the DC, you cannot fail by current 5E rules. It basically works like a series of if statements where you first check if you failed, then you check if you failed by 5 or more. If you don't fail, then you don't worry about the failed by 5 or more. If someone had a +5 and it was a DC10, even if they rolled a nat 1, they are only failing by 4, not 5. Thus if they have a modifier that would let them succeed on a nat 1, they can't fail by 5 or more.
"If you fail by 5 or more" does not by definition need to have a chance to fail as the chance to fail is dependent on the person being struck by the effect and how resilient they are to the effect.
There is no point for a "if you fail by more than 5" if players NEVER have a chance to fail. If there is a chance to fail then 5% chance for an expert with 0% of 5 or more fail does not eliminate the usefulness of higher saves. Having high dc's also makes high saves better. And also, also the person's entire point was that the nat 1 and nat 20 rule eliminated fail by 5 or succeed by 5 stuff. It doesn't. Your point has nothing to do with that
Not all characters auto-pass all checks. Just because the party rogue might be able to auto succeed some dexterity saving throws, or the wizard might be able to auto succeed an int saving throw doesn't mean that that applies to every character for every check. Characters have strengths and weaknesses. That's a feature, not a bug. Though as far as how autofailure works with fail by 5 mechanics, they dont. And by that I mean that there is no rule for how they interact at all. They've never existed at the same time, and we have no idea how they're supposed to interact because of it.
I'll give and example of what I'm talking about:
"Lottie’s books are here—both those she likes to read and her financial records for the gambling hall. A successful DC 13 Intelligence (Investigation) check made to look through the account books reveals that several liches have invested in Lottie’s business. If the check is 18 or higher, it becomes clear that Lottie keeps two sets of records—one that she discloses to her investors showing lower profits, and one she keeps to herself with the true profits. If used carefully, this information could let the characters blackmail the lich."
Let's say you have someone with a +13 to investigation. That person should auto succeed and not need to roll. But then that person has no chance of hitting the 18 and getting the additional info. If they do roll and get a 1, then they should auto fail even though it should have been impossible to fail.
There are several things in official content like this, where you for example you would auto fail or succeed, but should still need to roll to see if you hit or miss a threshold for additional effects.
For stuff like this the 1/20 auto fail/succeed is not backward compatible.
For a fail it would be something like:
"make a dc 20 strength check, if the target fails it is grappled, if it fails by 5 or more it is restrained"
A wizard with a -1 STR mod, can't make this save there for shouldn't be able to roll. By not rolling it also avoids rolling to be restrained. If it did roll it could succeed with a nat 20 even though success shouldn't be possible.
Oh, that's because the Nat 1/20 mechanics proposed in the UA are absolute horse shit and shouldn't be used at all.
PC #2 with a +3 Mod rolls a 1 and fails. Automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. (No actions, bonus actions, reactions or movement)
PC +3 With a +3 Mod rolls a 20 and succeeds. Since there is no degree of successes he goes last.
The rules exist to facilitate a specific idea of fantasy. The numbers shouldn't be taking the lead on this.
If you're instituting degrees of success and failure, then a roll is always relevant. Which is something the new D20 Test rule is trying to accomplish; if differently. Following the basic premise to its logical conclusion, there's always a risk of a failure or setback, and there's always a chance at success. That isn't in of itself a bad thing. It means you're never totally safe, but it also means you always have a fighting chance. Unpredictable and exciting.
That said, the rule also says the DM has discretion on when to call for a check. This is where I have a problem with it, and, again, this cuts both ways. A DM might call for a roll you could have automatically passed under the rules in the PHB, thus risking failure. And they could also deny you a roll you might automatically pass and simply decide you fail.
If you know what you want out of the game, you can tailor the system to deliver that experience. For me, this rule just needs to be worded a little better.
I do think this is fair. Giving DM's some advice as to when to call for a roll and when not to would help out a lot. But for me it is always a case of if it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to do, don't ask for a roll. If it physically, or Narratively impossible to fail, don't ask for a roll. Otherwise, it is ok for the most skilled person (that isn't a rogue with reliable talent) to fail from time to time with a simple mistake, and it is ok for a person that isn't skilled to just get lucky and make it by the skin of his teeth with a lucky roll. That is the fun narrative side of the game to me.
Also fair. Guidance on when a roll is actually warranted (i.e. is it within the realm of possibility) would be helpful. Some of that relies on knowledge the game doesn't inherently provide; like how heavy something is. Players can't farm rolls for a natural 20 (and the accompanying advantage) because the DM is the one who calls for rolls. But I think this might also be missing the bigger picture.
I read Character Origins as a player-facing document. And players knowing a 1 is always a failure and a 20 is always a success, regardless of any modifiers to the roll, is helpful. The rules for the DM, and how they're supposed to use them, haven't changed. At least, not yet. So when the rules say the DM decides when a roll is warranted, I think what it's really trying to say is the DM will call for a roll. It's not intended to read capriciously, but some of us can't help but see it that way because we can't take that DM hat off.
With DC skill rolls (At least in adventures) I want degrees of success.
You go to a library to research king's family tree
You make an history check
Make DC by 1-3 Learn fact A
Make DC by 4-6 Learn fact B
Make DC by 7-10 Learn fact C
Do not make DC learn an unfounded rumor
Make DC + 11 or more Can recite royal family tree back 3-4 Generations
You still have that with this rule. A good DM will still do this. Roll a one you find an unfounded rumor. Role a 20 you learn the important fact you came for. Anything else has a degree. You can have variable degrees of difficulty depending on different characters. That low intelligent character the player has mentioned many times can't read? They don't get a roll.
Now there are times a DM would not want the player knowing if they actually succeeded or not. So in a degree of failure a one may just be you don't find anything and a 20 is you find something but in between could be something the player thinks is true but is totally wrong. Off your example History check of DC 15. Player has a History roll of +7 rolls a 4 so gets an 11. They don't know it fails They think the information they get is true and when presenting it could get in trouble because it is false.
I think people need to remember that too. The player will often not know the DC of any action. They rarely do unless it is a measurable action like how much they can lift, how far they can jump, etc.
Universalizing crits seems like the kind of variant rule that would be right at home in the DMG, alongside variant rest durations and proficiency dice. There isn't really any compelling reason to make it mandatory or even standard beyond "well, that's how they do it in Critical Role™ and The Adventure Zone™ and Dimension 20™." Having ten percent of all rolls being completely out of any player agency is absolutely insane, and I don't see the various Cool Moments™ of the 8 strength bard (because it's always a bard or a rogue) getting a nat 20 and kicking the Athletics DC 29 portcullis off its hinges being worth so much loss to player agency. Guess I'll just have to set the DCs of my checks to scale off character stats or something. Oh well.
There is no point for a "if you fail by more than 5" if players NEVER have a chance to fail. If there is a chance to fail then 5% chance for an expert with 0% of 5 or more fail does not eliminate the usefulness of higher saves. Having high dc's also makes high saves better. And also, also the person's entire point was that the nat 1 and nat 20 rule eliminated fail by 5 or succeed by 5 stuff. It doesn't. Your point has nothing to do with that
There is a point for it, because not everyone is going to be able to always succeed on a roll. You actually have to invest into the roll to get it high enough to succeed on a nat 1, and you won't be able to do that for every roll. Some characters will succeed on a nat 1 on some rolls if they invested into those rolls and others won't be able to. Some characters will be able to fail by 5 or more because their modifier is low enough while others won't because their modifier is too high to fail by 5 or more.
Perfect. The DC is still under 30, their is an appropriate roll for them. There is a failure condition and there is a success condition as well as a success by more than 5 condition. 5% chance to fail, 95% chance to succeed and 75% chance for you to beat it by 5 or more. The roll here is appropriate and the 5% chance to fail is not the end of the world. ESPECIALLY if you were already using degrees of success as a thing, because than a 1 would have been the worst possible result besides a fail anyway. Now it is just a fail. It is ok to fail. If it is not ok to fail don't have them roll. If you guys really have an issue, play a halfling, or a rogue. Reliable talent gets around this and halfling luck gets a reroll on a 1 to dodge this. There are still ways to build to not fail on a 1 by making it unlikely/impossible to get a 1.
You already have to invest into specific rolls to succeed on a nat 1, you shouldn't need to invest even more by taking specific classes or races to stop having a 5% auto fail chance when it should just be done if you get your modifier high enough. 5% is actually statistically significant and it can just feel miserable when you fail a DC10 with a nat 1 even if your modifier exceeds it.
The rules exist to facilitate a specific idea of fantasy. The numbers shouldn't be taking the lead on this.
If you're instituting degrees of success and failure, then a roll is always relevant. Which is something the new D20 Test rule is trying to accomplish; if differently. Following the basic premise to its logical conclusion, there's always a risk of a failure or setback, and there's always a chance at success. That isn't in of itself a bad thing. It means you're never totally safe, but it also means you always have a fighting chance. Unpredictable and exciting.
That said, the rule also says the DM has discretion on when to call for a check. This is where I have a problem with it, and, again, this cuts both ways. A DM might call for a roll you could have automatically passed under the rules in the PHB, thus risking failure. And they could also deny you a roll you might automatically pass and simply decide you fail.
If you know what you want out of the game, you can tailor the system to deliver that experience. For me, this rule just needs to be worded a little better.
If someone actually invest their character into being able to succeed on certain rolls with a nat 1, they should be able to do so. To not do so is basically having a 5% of character investment being negated. The rules exist as a guideline on how to play the game; whether numbers take the lead or not is up to the group because some groups would like for the numbers to take the lead and there is nothing wrong with that.
This Nat 1/20 rule is more likely to negatively affect the people who would even interact with it to begin with. From what I can tell, most people who would be fine with this rule would never actually see it apply to them because they would generally fail on a nat 1 with or without the auto fail; the nat 20 auto success may play happen a tad more often but barely as in most cases, a nat 20 would be enough to succeed by the number alone. The people who see this rule come into effect would be the ones who are optimizing their characters to be able to succeed on a nat 1 roll and this rule gives them a 5% chance of having that build investment be negated, essentially told that it didn't matter that they put in that investment.
At most, this nat 1/20 rule should be an optional rule. The default 5E rule is the most flexible for the varying styles of gameplay.
Universalizing crits seems like the kind of variant rule that would be right at home in the DMG, alongside variant rest durations and proficiency dice. There isn't really any compelling reason to make it mandatory or even standard beyond "well, that's how they do it in Critical Role™ and The Adventure Zone™ and Dimension 20™." Having ten percent of all rolls being completely out of any player agency is absolutely insane, and I don't see the various Cool Moments™ of the 8 strength bard (because it's always a bard or a rogue) getting a nat 20 and kicking the Athletics DC 29 portcullis off its hinges being worth so much loss to player agency. Guess I'll just have to set the DCs of my checks to scale off character stats or something. Oh well.
I don't know about The Adventure Zone™ and Dimension 20™ but I believe Critical Role stopped doing Nat 1/20 auto fail/success (though I think they might do auto success on Saves for Nat 20's). I remember at times when they rolled a nat 20 during Campaign 2, Matt would still ask them for the total of their roll.
With DC skill rolls (At least in adventures) I want degrees of success.
You go to a library to research king's family tree
You make an history check
Make DC by 1-3 Learn fact A
Make DC by 4-6 Learn fact B
Make DC by 7-10 Learn fact C
Do not make DC learn an unfounded rumor
Make DC + 11 or more Can recite royal family tree back 3-4 Generations
Respectable, but degrees of success and failure are in the DMG. Right now, they're only testing basic rules for the player-facing side of the screen. What we're looking at is a proposal for the next Player's Handbook. And we don't need to add additional mechanics the players aren't intended to see.
Universalizing crits seems like the kind of variant rule that would be right at home in the DMG, alongside variant rest durations and proficiency dice. There isn't really any compelling reason to make it mandatory or even standard beyond "well, that's how they do it in Critical Role™ and The Adventure Zone™ and Dimension 20™." Having ten percent of all rolls being completely out of any player agency is absolutely insane, and I don't see the various Cool Moments™ of the 8 strength bard (because it's always a bard or a rogue) getting a nat 20 and kicking the Athletics DC 29 portcullis off its hinges being worth so much loss to player agency. Guess I'll just have to set the DCs of my checks to scale off character stats or something. Oh well.
I think your claim of 10% of all roles being outside their control is a disingenuous assertion. And for a number of reasons. If they can only ever succeed on a 20, then it's a 5% chance. And if it's anything less than that, then the 20 doesn't matter and only the 1 does. And even the 1 might not matter if even a 2 would fail; which is far more common than you think.
Also, a portcullis doesn't have hinges to be kicked off of. They're lowered down, so it would need to be lifted. That ought to be a function of its weight and the strength score(s) of the character(s) involved. If you have a point, you can make it without resorting to absurdism.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that. Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I think that would be, overall, a bad move, but I can see some value in it.
It would certainly be a wasted effort if the game is going to introduce gosh-darned feat trees.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I think that would be, overall, a bad move, but I can see some value in it.
It would certainly be a wasted effort if the game is going to introduce gosh-darned feat trees.
Flattening the number curve after 3.X was one of the main goals of 5e. It probably remains so.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that. Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
No, it's not implied. It's explcitly stated that an ability check automatically succeeds. They're specifically included in all D20 Tests.
D20 TEST The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Furthermore, a +33 modifier to a roll when the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run. It's just a bad-faith example. And the Dungeon Dudes regularly make basic mistakes, so (as should be the case with everyone you read or watch online) take their views with a healthy shake of salt.
These rules for character origins are player-facing. Knowing a 1 is an automatic failure is useful, as is knowing a 20 is an automatic success. And it does, rather explicitly, apply to Ability Checks. What the rule does is inform/remind players they don't choose when they roll, so nobody can "farm" rolls for a 20 and the advantage that comes along with it. The DM decides. That hasn't changed. The only thing which might be intended to change is rolls should happen more often. And if so, okay. That's cool because every roll would have still a consequence. None are meaningless, and it gives our games a way to have more positive and negative consequences. Failure and setback is always an option. By the same token, so is success. Being unable to save against a dragon's Frightful Presence sucks.
The DM can still decide a roll doesn't need to be made, but that cuts both ways. They can decide you automatically succeed or fail, regardless of your modifiers. Take that how you will.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I'm hoping they just kill most of the stacking bonuses.
Meteor Swarm has saves, not to hit, so it cannot crit. Rogues do not normally get extra attacks (and can only sneak attack once per turn regardless), so have both fewer chances to hit and rely more on fewer larger damage attacks to compete with other melee, despite likely using lighter lower damage weapons.
Missed that. (meteor swarm)
I mean, rogues still get heavy damage. Using a short sword (excluding modifiers): Even with all their actions an Assassin Rogue could do 154 damage per turn using sneak attack. plus another 1d6 if they dual wield. I've seen mixed reports but I don't think their sneak attack applies to that as well, if it does, double that number even more. Under the new rules they'd get 84 damage If we compare that to a fighter at level 20, 3 extra attacks, I'll throw in dual wield here. both with short swords for apples to apples. Short Swords: 28 average damage if all attacks hit, no critical. Across 8 attacks, there is still only a 34% chance that there is a critical (although, lets acknowledge there is also a 34% chance the fighter misses once). But lets give them 2 critical because they are lucky. That is still only an extra 2d6. Totaling 35 damage. Assuming that the critical damage falls on an average roll. (it could double a lower roll). Lets assume crazy luck and the fighter critical hits every attack. That would be 56 damage. Still under what an Assassin Rogue could do.
Ok, to throw in non assassin rogue, dual wielding, they would be at 42 damage for stealth attack, if they critical hit on both hits, that would be 46. So yes. A rogue would do less damage than a fighter IF the fighter critical hits on every attack of all their attacks.
Now you may argue that fighters can use more than short swords. OK, I'll do the math on that. Greatsword: 2d6. 2 attacks on a turn. that's.....14 damage, no critical hits. In this case there is only a 19% chance to land a critical hit but since they'll be rolling at advantage its basically the same odds as the fighter. So I'm giving them 2 critical hits here as well (yup both crits). That means they do a total of .....35 damage. OK, OK, lets roll all critical hits..... that's 4 attacks, all critical hits that would be ..... 56 damage.
Lets look at Barbarians, We'll skip to the greatsword: 2d6: 2 attacks 14 damage. pretty weak, but Barb is made for crits, right? ok, Lets say they crit on both attacks: that's 28 damage, now lets add the Brutal Critical: 10 extra damage dice (5 for each attack), 35 damage.
Lets look at a cool Dual Wielding Barbarian. I'll give them dual Battle Axes (i'm sure they have a feat) That's 4 attacks 1d8 each , 18 damage base, Because they are barbarians lets them them crit on all 4. 20 extra damage dice (nice), 90 damage....nice. Impossibly lucky, but nice. Realistically they'd crit a max of 2, leaving damage at 54.
To summarize. In the new system, rogues to slightly less than super lucky barbarians and impossibly lucky fighters. BUT they still can do this at will (i.e. not relying on the dice) each turn (potentially) NOTE: assassin Rogue would still equal or out damage them with sneak attack.
Let me know if I messed up the math.
Edit: Oh, I noticed I forgot to mention Action Surge. I suppose if a fighter burned that they would out damage, but its a limited resource unlike Sneak Attack so its hard to compare it. With that, and fair rate of miss / critical they'd just slightly out damage a rogue in the single instance, which they can only do twice per long rest. Assuming we double the Great sword attack of 35, take it to 60. Still I'd drop is down 2d6 since criting 4 times that would put it fairly in line with Rogue sneak attack.
I also ignored stat modifiers since both would likely be similar so they don't need to be factored.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that. Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
No, it's not implied. It's explcitly stated that an ability check automatically succeeds. They're specifically included in all D20 Tests.
D20 TEST The term d20 Test encompasses the three main d20 rolls of the game: ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws. If something in the game affects d20 Tests, it affects all three of those rolls. The DM determines whether a d20 Test is warranted in any given circumstance. To be warranted, a d20 Test must have a target number no less than 5 and no greater than 30.
ROLLING A 1 If you roll a 1 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll.
ROLLING A 20 If you roll a 20 on the d20, the d20 Test automatically succeeds, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. A player character also gains Inspiration when rolling the 20, thanks to the remarkable success. Rolling a 20 doesn’t bypass limitations on the test, such as range and line of sight. The 20 bypasses only bonuses and penalties to the roll.
Furthermore, a +33 modifier to a roll when the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run. It's just a bad-faith example. And the Dungeon Dudes regularly make basic mistakes, so (as should be the case with everyone you read or watch online) take their views with a healthy shake of salt.
These rules for character origins are player-facing. Knowing a 1 is an automatic failure is useful, as is knowing a 20 is an automatic success. And it does, rather explicitly, apply to Ability Checks. What the rule does is inform/remind players they don't choose when they roll, so nobody can "farm" rolls for a 20 and the advantage that comes along with it. The DM decides. That hasn't changed. The only thing which might be intended to change is rolls should happen more often. And if so, okay. That's cool because every roll would have still a consequence. None are meaningless, and it gives our games a way to have more positive and negative consequences. Failure and setback is always an option. By the same token, so is success. Being unable to save against a dragon's Frightful Presence sucks.
The DM can still decide a roll doesn't need to be made, but that cuts both ways. They can decide you automatically succeed or fail, regardless of your modifiers. Take that how you will.
The only time that you are unable to save against a dragon's fear that I am aware of is if you lack a positive modifier against an ancient gold dragon. Everything else already would succeed on a nat 20 without the auto success.
In the vast majority if cases, a nat 20 is likely to succeed even without an auto success because DC's don't often go past 20, especially at T1-2 where most games are played. By the time you reach enemies with DC's that high, you should have some magic items on hand to help you deal with those situations.
It doesn't matter if it is a 10% or a 5% chance that the roll is out of a player's agency. The default should always have the roll be in the player's agency. A bardic inspiration, artificer's flash of genius, a paladin's aura of protection, a bless spell, etc, they should always be able to help. A nat 1 auto fail stops even your party members from helping you. Player agency should not have any chance to be removed.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I'm hoping they just kill most of the stacking bonuses.
Well this nat 1/20 isn't the way to do it. That requires revisiting the abilities that add bonuses. Though I am unsure if they would. I find that people enjoy stacking bonuses from my experience.
As for why they introduced this nat 1/20 autofail, there was no balancing reason or to deal with bonus stacking, it was because it was a popular house rule. That is the only reason why they made this change. Jeremy Crawford confirmed this in an interview.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
You are missing a lot in this. 30 has been the highest DC according to the DMG. That is nearly impossible. Until the UA for DM's and DCs come we still need to go that 30 is the highest. Then you miss the part of other things still apply like line of sight, cover, etc. So in a bright light room with no place to hide and the person looking right at you then you can't succeed. The DM is in the right to say no roll needed.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I do think this is fair. Giving DM's some advice as to when to call for a roll and when not to would help out a lot. But for me it is always a case of if it is physically IMPOSSIBLE to do, don't ask for a roll. If it physically, or Narratively impossible to fail, don't ask for a roll. Otherwise, it is ok for the most skilled person (that isn't a rogue with reliable talent) to fail from time to time with a simple mistake, and it is ok for a person that isn't skilled to just get lucky and make it by the skin of his teeth with a lucky roll. That is the fun narrative side of the game to me.
No, I think you are missing the point of what I'm saying.
Specifically: "just don't call for rolls if you they can't fail/succeed" with the 1/20 auto fail/success.
The PC should auto fail or succeed, you are just seeing how hard they do so. Instead of doing this, the problem is that rolling allows PCs to auto fail something they should auto succeed.
It's an actual backward compatibility issue, whether or not you personally think that a 1/20 chance isn't a big deal.
Oh, that's because the Nat 1/20 mechanics proposed in the UA are absolute horse shit and shouldn't be used at all.
Just had a thought.
Initiative is a DEX ability check.
Ability Checks are D20 tests.
PC #1 With a +2 Mod rolls a 3 and goes on a 5.
PC #2 with a +3 Mod rolls a 1 and fails. Automatically fails, regardless of any modifiers to the roll. (No actions, bonus actions, reactions or movement)
PC +3 With a +3 Mod rolls a 20 and succeeds. Since there is no degree of successes he goes last.
Also fair. Guidance on when a roll is actually warranted (i.e. is it within the realm of possibility) would be helpful. Some of that relies on knowledge the game doesn't inherently provide; like how heavy something is. Players can't farm rolls for a natural 20 (and the accompanying advantage) because the DM is the one who calls for rolls. But I think this might also be missing the bigger picture.
I read Character Origins as a player-facing document. And players knowing a 1 is always a failure and a 20 is always a success, regardless of any modifiers to the roll, is helpful. The rules for the DM, and how they're supposed to use them, haven't changed. At least, not yet. So when the rules say the DM decides when a roll is warranted, I think what it's really trying to say is the DM will call for a roll. It's not intended to read capriciously, but some of us can't help but see it that way because we can't take that DM hat off.
With DC skill rolls (At least in adventures) I want degrees of success.
You go to a library to research king's family tree
You make an history check
Make DC by 1-3 Learn fact A
Make DC by 4-6 Learn fact B
Make DC by 7-10 Learn fact C
Do not make DC learn an unfounded rumor
Make DC + 11 or more Can recite royal family tree back 3-4 Generations
Universalizing crits seems like the kind of variant rule that would be right at home in the DMG, alongside variant rest durations and proficiency dice. There isn't really any compelling reason to make it mandatory or even standard beyond "well, that's how they do it in Critical Role™ and The Adventure Zone™ and Dimension 20™." Having ten percent of all rolls being completely out of any player agency is absolutely insane, and I don't see the various Cool Moments™ of the 8 strength bard (because it's always a bard or a rogue) getting a nat 20 and kicking the Athletics DC 29 portcullis off its hinges being worth so much loss to player agency. Guess I'll just have to set the DCs of my checks to scale off character stats or something. Oh well.
There is a point for it, because not everyone is going to be able to always succeed on a roll. You actually have to invest into the roll to get it high enough to succeed on a nat 1, and you won't be able to do that for every roll. Some characters will succeed on a nat 1 on some rolls if they invested into those rolls and others won't be able to. Some characters will be able to fail by 5 or more because their modifier is low enough while others won't because their modifier is too high to fail by 5 or more.
You already have to invest into specific rolls to succeed on a nat 1, you shouldn't need to invest even more by taking specific classes or races to stop having a 5% auto fail chance when it should just be done if you get your modifier high enough. 5% is actually statistically significant and it can just feel miserable when you fail a DC10 with a nat 1 even if your modifier exceeds it.
If someone actually invest their character into being able to succeed on certain rolls with a nat 1, they should be able to do so. To not do so is basically having a 5% of character investment being negated. The rules exist as a guideline on how to play the game; whether numbers take the lead or not is up to the group because some groups would like for the numbers to take the lead and there is nothing wrong with that.
This Nat 1/20 rule is more likely to negatively affect the people who would even interact with it to begin with. From what I can tell, most people who would be fine with this rule would never actually see it apply to them because they would generally fail on a nat 1 with or without the auto fail; the nat 20 auto success may play happen a tad more often but barely as in most cases, a nat 20 would be enough to succeed by the number alone. The people who see this rule come into effect would be the ones who are optimizing their characters to be able to succeed on a nat 1 roll and this rule gives them a 5% chance of having that build investment be negated, essentially told that it didn't matter that they put in that investment.
At most, this nat 1/20 rule should be an optional rule. The default 5E rule is the most flexible for the varying styles of gameplay.
I don't know about The Adventure Zone™ and Dimension 20™ but I believe Critical Role stopped doing Nat 1/20 auto fail/success (though I think they might do auto success on Saves for Nat 20's). I remember at times when they rolled a nat 20 during Campaign 2, Matt would still ask them for the total of their roll.
Respectable, but degrees of success and failure are in the DMG. Right now, they're only testing basic rules for the player-facing side of the screen. What we're looking at is a proposal for the next Player's Handbook. And we don't need to add additional mechanics the players aren't intended to see.
I think your claim of 10% of all roles being outside their control is a disingenuous assertion. And for a number of reasons. If they can only ever succeed on a 20, then it's a 5% chance. And if it's anything less than that, then the 20 doesn't matter and only the 1 does. And even the 1 might not matter if even a 2 would fail; which is far more common than you think.
Also, a portcullis doesn't have hinges to be kicked off of. They're lowered down, so it would need to be lifted. That ought to be a function of its weight and the strength score(s) of the character(s) involved. If you have a point, you can make it without resorting to absurdism.
It is NOT implied that Ability Checks automatically succeed. There is some suggestion for attacks and saves, but definitely not ability checks.
I dislike it. It puts too much on the DM to have to say no on outright, which can get players arguing about railroading or limiting their freedom. I'm all fine with it being a table rule, but not an official rule.
Dungeon Dudes put it well. "My Rogue has a Stealth of +33, yet somehow I'll fail outright if I happen to roll a 1" what would be the point of jacking up your scores to avoid that.
Another point they made is that it will cause players to make attempts at things they otherwise wouldn't even try because there is always a 5% chance they will succeed no matter how hard it is.
Crits is a bit divisive. I'm in favor of it personally, I feel like doubling a huge damage action is a bit excessive. I mean Meteor Swarm has a max potential of 240 damage. A critical on that would be 480 damage, that wipes out almost all high end legendaries. While max is pretty much never going to happen 166 (test roll) doubles to over 332, still an insane amount of double damage. This also applies to Rogue's Sneak Attack as well as some others. This leaves certain classes, like Fighter, etc. having to take separate actions or separate rolls to do that extra damage lacking. Unless the DMs have the character double each of those damages. Extra Attack and Action Surge have their own hit checks so double wouldn't apply to those.
With all the talk of "stacking bonuses is useless now," have we considered that it might be intentional? Like, what if Wizards is trying to curb the bonus-stacking behavior among players?
I think that would be, overall, a bad move, but I can see some value in it.
It would certainly be a wasted effort if the game is going to introduce gosh-darned feat trees.
Flattening the number curve after 3.X was one of the main goals of 5e. It probably remains so.
I'm not sure how feats enter into it, though.
No, it's not implied. It's explcitly stated that an ability check automatically succeeds. They're specifically included in all D20 Tests.
Furthermore, a +33 modifier to a roll when the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run. It's just a bad-faith example. And the Dungeon Dudes regularly make basic mistakes, so (as should be the case with everyone you read or watch online) take their views with a healthy shake of salt.
These rules for character origins are player-facing. Knowing a 1 is an automatic failure is useful, as is knowing a 20 is an automatic success. And it does, rather explicitly, apply to Ability Checks. What the rule does is inform/remind players they don't choose when they roll, so nobody can "farm" rolls for a 20 and the advantage that comes along with it. The DM decides. That hasn't changed. The only thing which might be intended to change is rolls should happen more often. And if so, okay. That's cool because every roll would have still a consequence. None are meaningless, and it gives our games a way to have more positive and negative consequences. Failure and setback is always an option. By the same token, so is success. Being unable to save against a dragon's Frightful Presence sucks.
The DM can still decide a roll doesn't need to be made, but that cuts both ways. They can decide you automatically succeed or fail, regardless of your modifiers. Take that how you will.
I'm hoping they just kill most of the stacking bonuses.
Missed that. (meteor swarm)
I mean, rogues still get heavy damage.
Using a short sword (excluding modifiers):
Even with all their actions an Assassin Rogue could do 154 damage per turn using sneak attack. plus another 1d6 if they dual wield. I've seen mixed reports but I don't think their sneak attack applies to that as well, if it does, double that number even more.
Under the new rules they'd get 84 damage
If we compare that to a fighter at level 20, 3 extra attacks, I'll throw in dual wield here. both with short swords for apples to apples.
Short Swords: 28 average damage if all attacks hit, no critical. Across 8 attacks, there is still only a 34% chance that there is a critical (although, lets acknowledge there is also a 34% chance the fighter misses once). But lets give them 2 critical because they are lucky. That is still only an extra 2d6. Totaling 35 damage. Assuming that the critical damage falls on an average roll. (it could double a lower roll).
Lets assume crazy luck and the fighter critical hits every attack. That would be 56 damage. Still under what an Assassin Rogue could do.
Ok, to throw in non assassin rogue, dual wielding, they would be at 42 damage for stealth attack, if they critical hit on both hits, that would be 46. So yes. A rogue would do less damage than a fighter IF the fighter critical hits on every attack of all their attacks.
Now you may argue that fighters can use more than short swords. OK, I'll do the math on that.
Greatsword: 2d6. 2 attacks on a turn. that's.....14 damage, no critical hits. In this case there is only a 19% chance to land a critical hit but since they'll be rolling at advantage its basically the same odds as the fighter. So I'm giving them 2 critical hits here as well (yup both crits). That means they do a total of .....35 damage.
OK, OK, lets roll all critical hits..... that's 4 attacks, all critical hits that would be ..... 56 damage.
Lets look at Barbarians,
We'll skip to the greatsword: 2d6: 2 attacks 14 damage. pretty weak, but Barb is made for crits, right? ok, Lets say they crit on both attacks: that's 28 damage, now lets add the Brutal Critical: 10 extra damage dice (5 for each attack), 35 damage.
Lets look at a cool Dual Wielding Barbarian. I'll give them dual Battle Axes (i'm sure they have a feat) That's 4 attacks 1d8 each , 18 damage base, Because they are barbarians lets them them crit on all 4. 20 extra damage dice (nice), 90 damage....nice. Impossibly lucky, but nice. Realistically they'd crit a max of 2, leaving damage at 54.
To summarize. In the new system, rogues to slightly less than super lucky barbarians and impossibly lucky fighters. BUT they still can do this at will (i.e. not relying on the dice) each turn (potentially) NOTE: assassin Rogue would still equal or out damage them with sneak attack.
Let me know if I messed up the math.
Edit: Oh, I noticed I forgot to mention Action Surge. I suppose if a fighter burned that they would out damage, but its a limited resource unlike Sneak Attack so its hard to compare it. With that, and fair rate of miss / critical they'd just slightly out damage a rogue in the single instance, which they can only do twice per long rest. Assuming we double the Great sword attack of 35, take it to 60. Still I'd drop is down 2d6 since criting 4 times that would put it fairly in line with Rogue sneak attack.
I also ignored stat modifiers since both would likely be similar so they don't need to be factored.
The only time that you are unable to save against a dragon's fear that I am aware of is if you lack a positive modifier against an ancient gold dragon. Everything else already would succeed on a nat 20 without the auto success.
In the vast majority if cases, a nat 20 is likely to succeed even without an auto success because DC's don't often go past 20, especially at T1-2 where most games are played. By the time you reach enemies with DC's that high, you should have some magic items on hand to help you deal with those situations.
It doesn't matter if it is a 10% or a 5% chance that the roll is out of a player's agency. The default should always have the roll be in the player's agency. A bardic inspiration, artificer's flash of genius, a paladin's aura of protection, a bless spell, etc, they should always be able to help. A nat 1 auto fail stops even your party members from helping you. Player agency should not have any chance to be removed.
Well this nat 1/20 isn't the way to do it. That requires revisiting the abilities that add bonuses. Though I am unsure if they would. I find that people enjoy stacking bonuses from my experience.
As for why they introduced this nat 1/20 autofail, there was no balancing reason or to deal with bonus stacking, it was because it was a popular house rule. That is the only reason why they made this change. Jeremy Crawford confirmed this in an interview.
Not really. I mean It means that if a Check is 12 and you have a modifier of 20 I can still fail, by rolling a 1, its BS.
Also, I'm not sure " the upper boundary is explicitly 30 is explicitly going beyond what the game is intended to run" is explicitly mentioned. The only thing listed there is that the DC save needs to be between 5 and 30 for the rule to apply. This actually suggests that target numbers can be above 30. The problem is players don't know the checks so they will attempt things and when they get a 20 they get excited that they succeeded only for the DM to tell them know, thus an argument ensues.
It also means a level 1 can hit a overcome insanely difficult situations due to luck. Its just dumb imo. I don't care how many morons you put up against Mike Tyson, none of them will get a hit in, unless he allows it. But at least with attack rolls the damage would be negledgable where Ability checks can result in ridiculous passes. I.e. "I'm going to stealth right up to this guards face, Nat 20, he doesn't see you. its just plain stupid.
You are missing a lot in this.
30 has been the highest DC according to the DMG. That is nearly impossible. Until the UA for DM's and DCs come we still need to go that 30 is the highest.
Then you miss the part of other things still apply like line of sight, cover, etc. So in a bright light room with no place to hide and the person looking right at you then you can't succeed. The DM is in the right to say no roll needed.